Re: Theos-World Re: To Jerry, on Pseudo Scholars
Mar 16, 2006 02:32 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Dear Krsanna,
I can indeed imagine the Soviet having a field day with that American.
Obviously the American scientist had a moment of confusion where he
merged Biblical mythology into scientific methodology. I don't whether
to laugh or be terrible embarrassed for the poor man. Should like he
should have been a minister instead.
I think a little background would put things into a better perspective.
The Continental Drift hypothesis was actually the product of a couple of
British scientists. The Idea quickly gained respect in GB, but when the
two Brits came to the US in the 60s to present their theory and its
supporting evidence, they were laughed out of the room. Since your
Soviet book was published in 1970, this American's comment had to have
been made during the period when the theory was pretty much ignored by
American scientists. It took about ten years (mid 70s) before the idea
began to take hold in the US. As it was taking hold, American
Scientists changed the name to Plate Tectonics. My guess is that they
probably would have left the name alone if the theory originated here.
Anyway, the theory did go through a lot of modifications since 1970.
This reminds me of a trip I took around '69 or '70 to Crater Lake in
Oregon. I stayed close to the rangers and absorbed every word they said
about the geological history of the area. When I revisited the area
around '84, I talked to one of the rangers and repeated back what the
previous ranger told me fifteen years earlier. The ranger said, "oh no,
that is all wrong." I was momentarily shocked that I could have
remembered it wrong. Then he explained that what the ranger told me was
the correct theory for then, but it has completely changed since.
I googled Otto Muck. Interesting man. I'll have to see if I can pick up
a used copy of his book. Or I may already have it in some unopened box
somewhere.
He may have indeed intuited some things, and his data isn't likely to
change. However, any scientific views he might have brought in are
going to be hopelessly outdated.
I'm not surprised about the existence of a meteor field along the coast
of So. Carolina, but I can't imagine how a meteor could sink a continent
without destroying the planet. Massive explosions, earthquakes, tidal
waves: yes. But anything powerful enough to sink a continent--even a
small one, would also create a massive extermination of life on the
planet. Perhaps, not everything, but it would be a major event. The
global distribution of plant and animal life has been a subject of study
since the mid nineteenth century. Donnelly made extensive used of this
material in his classic work. I recognize the Bashfor-Snell hypothesis
from some cable channel program on Atlantis. I wasn't too impressed
either.
I think some of the best hints about Atlantis are in the SD. But HPB
discusses the subject from several different angles, and if one doesn't
recognize that, or doesn't keep them straight, it all ends in a
confused mess. As I understand it, Lemuria and Atlantis are first of
all references to the planet in general during the 3rd and 4th
evolutionary periods (i.e. "root races."). Ruta and Daitya are
references to the end of the Atlantian cycle which coincides with the
midpoint of the present cycle. Poseidonis is a reference to a
relatively local disaster that wiped out a people who had a
relationship to the Atlantian period. A last /Remnant, so to speak.
Plato's Atlantis, more of a moral tale than history, appears to include
a distant memory of Posidonis. However, the more current argument that
Thera was Plato's Atlantis has a ring of at least partial truth.
Best
Jerry
krsanna wrote:
Jerry -- On continental formation theories, Americans believe (or
did) that the oceans have always existed. The Soviet author quoted
an American scientist, who, speaking at a conference, essentially
said, "The oceans are where God created them, right where they've
been since the beginning." (My paraphrase.) You can imagine the
Soviet had a field day with that American theory. The volcanic
eruptions, according to the Soviet theory, was an intermediate
event, but not the initial creational cause.
Otto Muck a German engineer whose hobby was Atlantology, and his
family published the book after his death. The Soviet author refers
to Muck's research, by the way.
Muck found much evidence for the existence and subsidence of
Atlantis. At the moment, I can't recall if Muck talked about
anomalies of marine vegetation and eels on America's east coast.
But, anomalies in these are factual.
Muck believed that Atlantis' sinking was associated with meteor
hits, and demonstrated evidence of what looks like a massive
meteorite field along the coast of South Carolina. This was fairly
compelling because he was using aerial photos. He believed that
parts of America's east coast recently sank while other parts rose
as a result of the meteor hits and Atlantis sinking.
THE ANDES
"Atlantis: The Andes Solution" (John Bashford-Snell) is another book
that has great photographic evidence, but I believe the author's
interpretation is way off base. He located a site in the Andes
using satellite photographs -- he had worked in aerial intelligence
in the Army. In the satellite photos concentric circles and canals
cover an area approximately the size of Poseidon, as described by
Plato. When the authohr visited the site, the canals looked like
little valleys. In the satellite photos, however, the regular
positioning and sizes of the concentric circles are apparent. He
believed that the sinking of Atlantis had caused the Andes to rise.
Assuming that a global culture anciently existed, as I believe it
did, the similarity between one large center and another would not
be surprising. The Andes as an ancient center for "The Brothers"
would be a good candidate for a city of that nature. I believe
Plato's description was pretty good for several reasons.
ANTARCTIC
Another location that can be plausibly interpreted as man-made
construction because of regularity of concentric circles separated
by canals is beneath the ice in the Antarctic. I can't remember
precisely how it was identified, but it involved a study of the
Antarctic.
It is feasible that a global culture could have used signature
design in large centers during the early part of the fourth round,
which an advanced culture lived among humans on earth. Zecharia
Sitchin locates a scientific base at the Antarctic in his Earth
Chronicles.
The Antarctic site is south of Easter Island, and that's another
interesting feature. My TimeStar geometry identifies Easter Island
by latitude and longitude.
Thar ya go.
-- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@...> wrote:
Dear Krsanna,
I should mention that the Soviet writer believes that what is now
the Atlantic Ocean was once a land mass, transfigured to become
an
ocean.
Interesting idea. The problem is that the Atlantic ocean floor
itself
(under the sediments) is made up of the volcanic matter that came
from
the mid Atlantic ridge. Cores have been made on either side of
the
ridge and oceanographers have found that the volcanic matter gets
older
at they get further from the ridge. According to current dating
methods, the volcanic matter nearest the Eastern and Western
shores of
the Atlantic date to about 180,000 years.
As I said, and what is so interesting, is that the Soviet
theories seemed to embrace the idea of metamorphosis as an
evolutionary process, rather the mechanical pulling and shifting
of
the continental drift theory.
I think there is room for both. The absorption and recreation of
continents through subduction and volcanism strikes me as a kind
of
metamorphosis. Though, it seems that your Soviet writer had a
different
idea about it.
If I get a chance, I'll see if I can scan from the Soviet book
chapters dealing with the core samples and inhabitants living on
the
Canary Islands at the time of modern contact.
Yes, please. I am especially interested in those Canary island
inhabitants.
Have you read Otto Muck's book on Atlantis? His research on
America's Atlantic coast was good.
No, I'm afraid I haven't. What is his conclusions on Atlantis?
Best,
Jerry
krsanna wrote:
Jerry -- The copy that I have is in English. Isn't that
interesting. It was written in English but was never published
in
America. So much for Cold War politics. The author used the
term
rock "DNA," by which I surmised he meant the mineral
composition. I
searched the internet and found a copy in Ireland. I believe
there
were copies in England as well.
I should mention that the Soviet writer believes that what is now
the Atlantic Ocean was once a land mass, transfigured to become
an
ocean. As I said, and what is so interesting, is that the Soviet
theories seemed to embrace the idea of metamorphosis as an
evolutionary process, rather the mechanical pulling and shifting
of
the continental drift theory.
And yet, continental drift has become tectonic plate theory.
I've
been reading "A Crack In The Edge Of The Earth," by Simon
Winchester, but, unfortunately got sidetracked. With what? More
HPB. Winchester is a good popular science writer. I read his
book
on Krakatoa. He frames geology with his human experience of it.
Research that has found identical rock in Siberia and the Western
U.S. in being done at The University of Montana. I have not seen
anything definitive published on it, and have seen just
interviews
with the researcher, Dr. Sears.
If I get a chance, I'll see if I can scan from the Soviet book
chapters dealing with the core samples and inhabitants living on
the
Canary Islands at the time of modern contact.
Have you read Otto Muck's book on Atlantis? His research on
America's Atlantic coast was good.
Best regards,
Krsanna
-- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@> wrote:
Dear Krsanna,
Thank you for this interesting post. I would appreciate any
references
you have to an English translation of the 1970 work, or
summaries
of
it. Of course they, and you, are right about something like a
continent
leaving marks. Then again, the theory has changed remarkably
since
Fritz's '64 address and since '70 also. The new data and
consequently
the ideas have changed so much that the oceanographers changed
the
name
of the theory to "plate tectonics." They now understand that it
is not
the continents that move, but the plates which the continents
sit
upon
glide over a very hot intermediary layer between the plates and
the
core. They understand the mid-Atlantic ridge to be evidence for
ocean
floor spreading and the "ring of fire" around the Pacific basin
as
"subduction zones" where the continental plates return to the
bowels of
the earth, only to be reformed again through volcanic activity.
Other
evidence of plate movement is the island arcs most commonly
found
in the
Pacific. The Hawaiian island chain is the best known example.
They now
understand that island arcs are formed by the motion of the
continental
plates over "hot spots." The overall theory seems to be pretty
tight at
the moment. That is, the main observations are accounted for.
Still, the Soviet finding of a land mass with 12,000 year old
fresh
water vegetation is a fascinating discovery, though, depending
upon its
exact location, could be accounted for by the last major ice
age. The
world's ocean depth, because of ice age cycles, vary by some 350
feet.
They are near maximum right now. Also, the continents do rise
and sink
to a certain extent by other actions: the weight of glaciers, a
strange
"bulge" that has its own motion, and, in a more localized
extent,
earthquake activity.
I'm interested in knowing what you mean by rock "DNA." But the
canary
Islands and Iceland would have been part of a single land mass
about 180
to 200 million years ago. There have been a lot of matches
already made
between the rocks on the Eastern coast of the Americans and the
Western
coast of Europe and Africa.
Best
Jerry
krsanna wrote:
I hope it's okay to interject into this discussion information
about
the mountain range that extends from Iceland in the north
southerly
through the mid-Atlantic. I've found some great Soviet
research
in
that identifies between Iceland and the Canary Islands a land
mass
with fresh water vegetation carbon dated to about 10,000 BCE.
This
book was first printed in Moscow in 1970. Further, the Soviets
found identical rock "DNA" in the sunken area as that found in
Iceland.
The Soviet theory of continental formation was very different
than
the American theory of continental drift. (Perhaps some of the
Russian members can provide more information on this.) The
Soviet
theory involved a metamorphosis of elements and believed that
something as large as a continent "drifting" would leave marks
of
some kind. (It makes sense to me.) I'm not convinced that
drift
adequately explains the phenomena of continental drift.
Research
on
continental formation currently in process in the U.S. may
still
rewrite text books.
As a Soviet publication, the book was never published in the
U.S. I
found it by searching on the internet: "Atlantis," by N.F.
Zhirov.
Soviet sciences were more open than America's, because they
didn't
have to seek approval of Christian voters. The result if that
Americans conducted much research under cover of secret
projects,
such as experiments with psychics and psychic warfare. Uri
Geller
writes about some of his experiences with American research
into
psychism.
Best regards,
Krsanna
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@>
wrote:
Dear Cass,
OK, now I understand what you are saying. Yes, I agree that
there
are
things HPB wrote that have become verified. One of the most
extraordinary passages in the SD is about a mid-Atlantic
mountain
range
that begins at Iceland, moves southwards, curves around Africa
and
ends
at India. At the time, it was known that there was a mid-
Atlantic
rise
in elevation, but not that was a mountain range. Possibly
someone
could
have speculated that the rise could be mountain range. But
there
was no
evidence one way of the other. Sometime early in the early
1900s
they
figured out that it was probably a mountain range, but they
did
not know
how it ran. The fact that it runs the length of the Atlantic
and
curves
around Africa was not discovered until 1957!
On the other hand, you might look at D.D. Kanga's "Where
Theosophy
and
Science Meet" (written in 1938). Kanga tried to interpret the
SD
according to the then current science and ended up making a
lot
of
misreadings. I also have a tape here of a talk that Fritz
Kunz
gave in
1964, when the "Continental Drift" notion was first becoming
seriously
considered in this country. Fritz remarked that if
Continental
Drift
proves to be correct, "then we may as well throw out the
Secret
Doctrine." I can read the SD today and spot numerous
statements
which,
to my understanding, are supportive of Continental Drift. But
during
Kanga's time when the idea was all but unknown no one, that I
am
aware,
understood those passages in that way.
This leads me to wonder all the more about the special nature
of
the SD,
its writer and her teachers. It makes the book all the more
exciting.
Best
Jerry
Cass Silva wrote:
What is important for me is the information and not where or
who
the information came from. Much of it is now starting to be
verified by the sciences. Those ideas that were once thought
of
as
Mumbo Jumbo have and will continue to become fact.
Cass Silva wrote:
What is important for me is the information and not where or
who
the information came from. Much of it is now starting to be
verified by the sciences. Those ideas that were once thought
of
as
Mumbo Jumbo have and will continue to become fact.
Cheers
Cass
Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@> wrote: Dear Cass,
Let us say, for argument's sake, that HPB, had reasons
unknown
to us, but obviously affirmed by the Masters, to preserve their
identity and whereabouts as "persona non gratis",while at the
same
time needing to acknowledge that the universal wisdom was
directed
and dictated by those same beings. What a task for anyone!
That appears to be just the case, in my opinion.
Has any scholar of theosophy discovered a "lie" within the
works
given to the world, i.e. Isis and SD?
There is a lot of controversy about the accuracy and source
of
HPB's
information. That is to be expected.
Isn't this the cogent point?
Why?
AS far as the bun fight over Tacoma etc, my humble and non
scholastic attitude is that the Poparisation of the TS is
continuing
and will polarise the society out of credible existence, as is
the
case in the rise and fall of the catholic church.
The way I like to express it is that the Theosophical
Organizations are
bound hand and foot by their own karma. I see the
polarization
as the
outcome of that karma.
Best,
Jerry
Cass Silva wrote:
Let us say, for argument's sake, that HPB, had reasons
unknown
to us, but obviously affirmed by the Masters, to preserve their
identity and whereabouts as "persona non gratis", while at
the
same time needing to acknowledge that the universal wisdom was
directed and dictated by those same beings. What a task for
anyone!
Has any scholar of theosophy discovered a "lie" within the
works
given to the world, i.e. Isis and SD?
Isn't this the cogent point?
AS far as the bun fight over Tacoma etc, my humble and non
scholastic attitude is that the Poparisation of the TS is
continuing
and will polarise the society out of credible existence, as is
the
case in the rise and fall of the catholic church.
No matter, the horse has already bolted, and the rider free
at
last from all the petty struggles brought about my men who may
believe their crusade is based on moral integrity, laughable.
Christianity has been arguing for 2000 years about its claim
as
the one true religion, so those in what they consider powerful
positions will be kept employed for many years to come, kicking
up
the dust.
Cass
carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
Jerry,
Thanks for you interesting posting.
You say:
"I expected in your reply below to either supply quotes
where
Paul did
indeed make such statements, and/or to comment upon my
discourse. Instead,
you come up with a quote where
Paul uses the word "charlatans" in connection to HPB and
Gurdjieff. Now,
liar and charlatan are two very different words with
different
meanings."
I say:
My point, Jerry, is that Paul Johnson says that HPB lies or
is
a charlatan.
The two words are applied to false persons. If you believe
charlatans do
not lie, well, my friend! It sounds like that difference
between "innocent"
and "not guilty". (By the way, Brazilian tribunals use the
word "innocent"
instead of "not guilty").
The issue is that Paul says, implies and suggests that HPB
was
not truthful
or reliable. We may all use the words we prefer for that.
There
are plenty
of them. The meaning is the same, though.
Besides, my point is NOT that Paul openly and firmly states
HPB
is a fraud.
He follows Algeo's line. He suggests this is "a possibility
among others".
This kind of action is one of the most efficient forms of
active slander.
This is a form of slander in which the slander tries to
avoid
being caught
as such. This has been used in Adyar TS since the false
accusations
against Judge in the 1890s.
When asked to clarify his position with regard to HPB's
honesty
(which
should be no big deal!), Paul, the Historian, refuses to
to
so, and gets
away from the debate, using the mask of a person with
offended
sensitivities.
Is this emotionalistic show a "scholarly attitude"? Not at
all.
It is well-known, Jerry, that authentic scholars and
researchers do NOT
get away when their thesis are confronted.
Just the opposite. They take every opportunity to clarify
their
facts, to
defend and to IMPROVE their viewpoints.
Only historians who are benefitting from authoritarian
political
structures
will get nervous and bitter and reject clarifying their
views.
Now, Adyar
TS structure, as you may know, is not too open-minded...
So this is the kind of "Historian" some Adyar leaders (not
Ms.
Radha
Burnier) need, in order to avoid facing the consequences
of
Leadbeater's
biography written by Gregory Tillett -- and other
publications
which show
20th century pseudo-theosophy as it is.
Radha Burnier runs an authoritarian structure, to my view --
yes.
But she clearly disapproves the gossiping/libeling policy
about
HPB, and
she will never -- as long as I know -- defend CW
Leadbeater's
clairvoyance
and fancies. I hope you understand I am looking at the
context, in order
to understand the specific facts.
I am sorry if I did not discuss every point in your message
below. I hope I
addressed the main issues, though. Let me know if I did
not.
Thank you very much for your openess of mind.
Best regards, Carlos.
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World To Carlos Cardoso Aveline--some
thoughts
and a reply
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:01:10 -0800
Dear Carlos,
I changed your subject heading out of respect for Paul, who
has
stated
on several occasions that he does not like his name
displayed
in subject
headings. It is just a matter of respecting the
preferences
of
others. I replaced the heading with your name, which, of
course, you
are free and welcome to change.
Because of my busy schedule, I have become more selective
concerning
which postings I read and which I reply to. I try to reply
to
those
posts which I feel that I can make a constructive
contribution
to the
writer and/or interested readers. To properly do this, I
have
to take
the time to read (sometimes several times) the post,
consider
what they
are saying (and implying), and then formulate an answer
which
I
hope
will move the topic along. This takes time. But I believe
that
these
kind of posts raises the overall quality of a discussion
board
and is
helpful to others. On the other hand, to argue for the
sake
of
argument
is, for me, a waste of energy and time. It is my hope that
my
correspondents take the same time and consideration to
reply
to
my
messages to them. Now, regarding our discussion.
My last response to you was concerning your statement that
Paul
wrote
that HPB "lied." Here again is the statement you made,
which
I
replied:
When Paul Johnson writes that she lied, or implies that
she
lied, that
she was a Spy, etc. (which she denied vehemently and
unendingly) he is
saying that her philosophy is the philosophy of a liar, the
philosophy of a
fraudulent woman.
I replied that I did not recall Paul writing that HPB
lied.
I
then went
into a carefully considered discourse about HPB's style of
communication
and how it is so often misunderstood. I expected in your
reply
below to
either supply quotes where Paul did indeed make such
statements, and/or
to comment upon my discourse. Instead, you come up with a
quote
where
Paul uses the word "charlatans" in connection to HPB and
Gurdjieff.
Now, liar and charlatan are two very different words with
different
meanings. My Webster's Dictionary defines the word in
part: "one who
prates much in his own favor, and makes unwarranted
pretensions..."
This definition seems to fit well the quote you gave me
below.
It does
not necessarily imply lying, but only self-promotion. At
any
rate, this
is an entirely different discussion. If this is your
method
of
discussion, that is, shifting the terms of the discussion
with
new
arguments instead of responding to my discourse, then I
must
reply by
saying that I frankly cannot afford the time, nor do I have
an
inclination to play this kind of game. With this said, I
will
assume
that you misunderstood and will more carefully re-read my
last.
In the
mean time, I will respond to your statements below:
I re-read the 1987 Theosophical History Pamphlet and noted
the
quotes
given below. Your sentence fragment "had fraudulent
aspects"
Appears
once on page three. In context, the quote reads:
"The Sufi doctrine of instrumental teaching demonstrates a
possible
explanation of the apparently 'outrageous' and 'fraudulent"
aspects of
H.P.B. and Gurdjieff." He then goes on to explain what the
Sufi
doctrine
of instrumental teaching is. Note that Paul had
put "outrageous" and
"fraudulent" in quotes. That means that he is quoting
someone
elses'
use of the terms. Also, the qualifier "apparently"
indicates
that
whoever he is quoting, is not saying that aspects of
H.P.B.'s
and
Gurdjieff's methods appear to be fraudulent. Also, the
main
sense of
the paragraph, if you read it in its entirety, is to
explain
the
doctrine of instrumental teaching, which Paul is suggesting
that H.P.B.
and Gurdjieff may have employed. If they did, then that
would
mean that
what appears to be outrageous and fraudulent is not so
after
all.
The quote you cite on page seven is part of Paul's
concluding
paragraphs. Here, he is naming several possible
conclusions
one can
make about H.P.B. and Gurdjieff. To paraphrase the ideas:
1)
that Both
may have been Charlatans with Gurdjieff exploiting what HPB
accomplished. 2) That H.P.B. was genuine and Gurdjieff not.
3)
That
Gurdjieff was sent to correct mistakes H.P.B. made 4) Both
H.P.B. and
Gurdjieff were genuine. Paul does not, in his conclusion
offer
an
opinion as to which, if any of those possibilities are
correct.
2) Besides, I friendly challenge you to extract from
Johnson
any clear
declaration that he does NOT consider HPB a fraud, and
that
he
considers
her
as a sincere, honest, decent woman, author and teacher. He
uses the same
"maybe" tactics as Algeo and others, in the way he
slanders
HPB. All his
books use that strategy. As he wants to sell his books, he
will most
likely
NOT contradict himself in that. (In his "approach", Paul
ignores the 1986
declaration of the SPR, etc.)
Carlos, you have to keep in mind that this article was
submitted as a
scholarly paper. What you want Paul to write is an
Hagiography
or an
Apologia. Those kinds of discourse are not suitable for
scholarly
writing. I can say that I have known Paul since 1984 and
know
for a
fact that he does indeed admire HPB.
3) Of course, Esoteric Philosophy cannot be understood at
the
level of
outer
appearances ("face value"). True. Esoteric Philosophy
deals
with the
occult, or essential aspects of life, which are "invisible
to
the eyes"
(to
use St. Exupery's expression). Yet they are invisible NOT
because they
are
false, as illustrated-ignorants like Paul Johnson and John
Algeo will
say.
I think that we all are ignorant at different levels. Yet
for
one
person to call another ignorant, reeks of arrogance to my
nose.
See the 'Doctrine
of the Eye' versus the 'Doctrine of the Heart' in "The
Voice
of the
Silence".
I have been studying HPB's writings for 43 years and
teaching
them for
almost thirty years. I think I understand to eye and heart
doctrines
well enough.
g a4) As to HPB bein fraud or semi-fraud, it is enough to
see
her astral
chart. She was a Leo in the sun sign. Is Leo a sign for
fraud
or lies?
No.
Benito Mussolini was born July 29, 18883. That makes him a
Leo
too.
What do you think of him?
directly opposite to the sometimes
unstable, anxious and astute Scorpio (while Scorpio as a
sign
also has
very
good qualities, of course).
Actually, Leo is opposite Aquarius.
HPB was Cancer in her ascendant -- a
personality strongly emotional, sincere, loving, direct,
sensitive, open,
compassionate, sometimes too vulnerable -- and uncapable
of
deceiving.
Yasser Arafat had cancer rising. He didn't seem to be
overly
sensitive
about the people he killed to get to the position he was in.
Her Moon was in Libra -- her emotions were transparent,
rational, inclined to justice and reciprocity, also
vulnerable, and far
from allowing her to have any cold outer mask.
Truman Capote had moon in Libra. He wrote "In Cold Blood."
Those who attack her personal,
Lion/Cancer/Libra honesty and openess, are attacking the
essential
ethical
basis of her philosophy.
Mere planetary placements alone are not going to tell you
much
about a
person. I suggest that you leave astrology to the
astrologers.
5) I cannot agree that the book "Incidents in the Life of
Madame
Blavatsky",
by A. P. Sinnett, is a "confused mess". In fact, it is a
major
source of
first-hand evidence on HPB's life.
Actually, second hand evidence. It is a biography.
It is the cause of many of HPB's letters
now available. Because of this, Vera, HPB's sister, wrote
important
texts
about the life of the founder of the theosophical movement.
Boris de Zirkoff deserves credit for pulling together most
of
the
letters we have. He also corrected the many mistakes in
the
Biography.
See the chronologies in the Blavatsky Collected Works,
which
he
spent 50
years compiling.
6) As to the absence of data about HPB's life, there are
two
points I
want
to make.
I don't wish to get into a discussion about your notions of
the
esotericism of St. Germain, Carlos Castaneda etc. Rather,
HPB
simply
stated that her private life before she became a public
person
is none
of the public's business. Most public people fell that
way,
whether
they are an occultist, actor, or astronaut.
7) Up to a few days ago, I thought Johnson to be honestly
self-
deluded.
I
have to apologize for that. I have learned better. Paul
makes
brutal
though
disguised attacks to HPB and the Masters, but, when
confronted with the
facts, he tries to cover himself with the false mantle and
role of a
poor,
delicate and innocent victim.
I hope that the misreadings I have pointed out to you will
help
you to
put aside your former conclusions, carefully re-read Paul's
writings and
re-evaluate them.
Best wishes,
Jerry
carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
Dear Jerry,
Thanks for your views.
1) I will quote from Paul Johnson's pamplhlet "Madame
Blavatsky, the
'veiled
years' " (THC, London, 1987, p. 07):
"There are two obvious questions(...) The first concerns
the
relative
genuiness of Gurdjieff and Blavatsky as emissaries of
occult
orders.
Both
may have been charlatans, with Gurdjieff merely exploiting
the
market
created by H.P.B. (...)."
Is that clear?
In page 03 of the same pamphlet, Johnson explains "why"
HPB
was a fraud,
or
"had fraudulent aspects" in her behaviour and work. HPB is
but
a mirror
for
him as for many people.
2) Besides, I friendly challenge you to extract from
Johnson
any clear
declaration that he does NOT consider HPB a fraud, and
that
he
considers
her
as a sincere, honest, decent woman, author and teacher. He
uses the same
"maybe" tactics as Algeo and others, in the way he
slanders
HPB. All his
books use that strategy. As he wants to sell his books, he
will most
likely
NOT contradict himself in that. (In his "approach", Paul
ignores the 1986
declaration of the SPR, etc.)
3) Of course, Esoteric Philosophy cannot be understood at
the
level of
outer
appearances ("face value"). True. Esoteric Philosophy
deals
with the
occult, or essential aspects of life, which are "invisible
to
the eyes"
(to
use St. Exupery's expression). Yet they are invisible NOT
because they
are
false, as illustrated-ignorants like Paul Johnson and John
Algeo will
say.
Essential aspects of life can be seen only by the heart.
See
the
'Doctrine
of the Eye' versus the 'Doctrine of the Heart' in "The
Voice
of the
Silence".
g a4) As to HPB bein fraud or semi-fraud, it is enough to
see
her astral
chart. She was a Leo in the sun sign. Is Leo a sign for
fraud
or lies?
No.
It is the most brave and loyal sign, directly opposite to
the
sometimes
unstable, anxious and astute Scorpio (while Scorpio as a
sign
also has
very
good qualities, of course). HPB was Cancer in her
ascendant -- a
personality strongly emotional, sincere, loving, direct,
sensitive, open,
compassionate, sometimes too vulnerable -- and uncapable
of
deceiving.
No
frauds, then. Her Moon was in Libra -- her emotions were
transparent,
rational, inclined to justice and reciprocity, also
vulnerable, and far
from allowing her to have any cold outer mask. And -- she
spent most of
her
life fighting cold outer personality masks, which she
called "shells'.
She
had reasons to do so. All of her philosophy is the
philosophy of
universal
truth and personal sincerity. Those who attack her
personal,
Lion/Cancer/Libra honesty and openess, are attacking the
essential
ethical
basis of her philosophy.
5) I cannot agree that the book "Incidents in the Life of
Madame
Blavatsky",
by A. P. Sinnett, is a "confused mess". In fact, it is a
major
source of
first-hand evidence on HPB's life. It is the cause of many
of
HPB's
letters
now available. Because of this, Vera, HPB's sister, wrote
important
texts
about the life of the founder of the theosophical movement.
6) As to the absence of data about HPB's life, there are
two
points I
want
to make.
First, the life of every regular disciple will have
mysterious
aspects.
They
have to protect all their inner lives from "outward
magnetism". See
Alessandro Cagliostro, Count of St. Germain and others,
equally
mysterious,
and equally called "charlatans" by the Paul-Johnsons and
V.
Solovyofs of
their times. The libellers of Initiates enjoy selling
books
with their
fancied "revelations".
Second, HPB, as Carlos Castaneda and other learners,
trained
herself for
some time in self-forgetfulness, which includes "erasing
the
signs of
every
step taken in the world". This is something
which people who do not understand a iota of esoteric
philosophy cannot
ever
understand.
7) Up to a few days ago, I thought Johnson to be honestly
self-
deluded.
I
have to apologize for that. I have learned better. Paul
makes
brutal
though
disguised attacks to HPB and the Masters, but, when
confronted with the
facts, he tries to cover himself with the false mantle and
role of a
poor,
delicate and innocent victim.
=== message truncated ===
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
